Quantum Spin

Well, due to some spammer having found this obscure blog, I have been forced to refuse Anonymous posts. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause for legitimate posters, but since I am unable to send feedback to the offending servers causing them to explode and burst into flames - well, I do what I can. Thank you to all my sincere commentators and may the spammers rot in digital agony.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Shooting in Aurora

In an Op-Ed in Tuesday's Washington Times by Charles Hurt (An open letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn and Warner Brothers), he seemingly includes those mentioned in his header as, at least, partially responsible for last weeks horrible shoooting in Aurora, Colorado. He makes this connection because of the violence and gore included in their movies.

Now, I can understand the underlying message in Hurt's Op-Ed and I am certainly no apologist for Sean Penn, but - c'mon - Nolan, Penn and WB did not commit this crime; James Holmes did.

Peckinpah movies are tremendously bloody, Tarantino seems to love bleeding head wounds. For their day, E.G. Robinson movies were horribly violent; my mother is still afraid to see a movie with him in it. Psycho, a classic and highly regarded film, terrified viewers. There was more detailed and realistic blood and dismembered bodies in Saving Private Ryan than any Batman movie invented.

I understand, but Hurt should not distract from Holmes' responsibility for this crime by diluting it with assertions of culpability by those who did not commit the act.

As for the little girl, though she by no means deserved to die, what parent with at least two brain cells to rub together would allow her to go to a Nolan interpretation of Batman in the first place, let alone a midnight showing? That was the height of irresponsibility, even had there not been yet a mild disagreement within the walls of the theater. This movie was aimed at a specific demographic that does not include a six-year old little girl.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

So, Is The Middle Class 98% of Taxpayers Or Shrinking?

So, on the one hand, the middle class contains 98% of us taxpayers;

"...which is the need to extend the middle-class tax cuts that 98 percent of American taxpayers pay."
(although, I didn't think a tax CUT was something you paid, but that's just par for the course for the Obama admin)

But, on the other hand, we have the "shrinking" middle class;

"President Obama said today that the United States faces 'a make or break moment' for a middle class that is shrinking because of 'gaping' income inequality."

98% is "make or break?" There's a "gaping" income inequality?
I suggest that the White House is full of hooey for not being able to keep their lies straight.

Government Is Not The Answer

This is the problem with society and the dems are up to their necks in it.

Not obesity, but the desire for federal intervention.

27% of Republicans (who need to take a refresher course on the Constitution) want the feds to intervene. 82%, more than three times as many as Republicans, of dems want the intervention.

Until we disabuse ourselves of the misbegotten belief that the federal government is the answer to all life's issues, we shall simply sink deeper and deeper into the mire of socialism.

That's Not What Your Oath Says, Senator

This morning, on the Senate floor, Senator Reid said, "We do what we can to protect the president of the United States."

My opinion of president Obama as an overreaching socialist with barely concealed dreams of dictatorial tyranny aside, did Sen. Reid maintain this same sentiment when President Bush was in office?

Did he do what he could to protect him?

I submit, that he did not.

Sen. Reid's statement was emblematic of hypocrisy.

His duty, the duty Sen. Reid swore to when he took office, was to protect the Constitution of the United States, not the president. I am of the opinion that to make the statement that he did on the Senate floor is a violation of his oath of office. Further, it is partisan to the extreme and certainly not in concert with the letter or spirit of the oath he took or the Constitution.

Friday, July 06, 2012

Obamacare is Unconstitutional

Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

But, the left doesn't care about the Constitution, they've been wiping their feet on it since FDR. To them, it is something to get around, to be avoided, to be spat upon, a source of words that they arrange in any order they like to get what they want.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is nothing more than ink on a page. It has no intrinsic means to provide for its own defense. Without good men to support it, to defend it, it will fail to protect us from the overreaching dictates of those intent upon its destruction - like Obama and his supporters.

Students in schools are taught the falsehood that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document; that it magically morphs upon the whims of society. Those who support this concept ignore that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land, not a collection of suggestions, to alter and twist as the majority deems.

The LAW of the Constitution in no way supports Obamacare. It is a wretched and criminal misinterpretation to say that it does. This nation moved closer to death when Roberts cast his vote; he hammered home another nail into the coffin built by FDR and carried by the socialist liberals and progressives of this once-great nation, to sink within the grave dug by an apathetic electorate and a complicit Congress.

Obama must be removed in the coming election. Those in Congress who voted for this sucking chest wound of a law must be voted out as soon as they come up for reelection. We must return to the dream of America, the path the Founding Fathers laid before us, that we left almost a century ago and have refused to tread ever since.

When asked what the Constitution gave us, Ben Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, our possession of it hangs by a thread, a thread that may well be severed utterly, if Obama and his ilk retain office. A thread that, if broken, may remove our Republic from us irretrievably.

Labels: , , , , , , ,